ORDER : (This case has been heard through video conference) This Criminal Revision has been filed seeking to call for records in M.C.No.8 of 2012 and to set aside the order dated 28.02.2014 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruthuraipoondi, awarding maintenance of Rs.6,000/- per month from 27.07.2012 to 01.03.2013 and thereafter, Rs.3,000/- per month as maintenance to the 1st respondent/wife and Rs.3,000/- per month from 27.07.2012 as maintenance to the second respondent/minor daughter. The maintenance amounts were ordered to be paid on or before 5th of every month. 2. The 1st respondent wife had filed M.C.No.8 of 2012 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance of Rs.10,000/- for her and Rs.5,000/- for her minor daughter in total Rs.15,000/- per month and in the petition, she had stated that the marriage between her and the petitioner/husband took place on 05.04.2010 and that at the time of marriage 25 sovereigns jewel and Rs.1 lakh was given as dowry and that the matrimonial life was pleasant for some time. Thereafter, there was a quarrel between them. While so, out of their wedlock on 14.12.2011, they delivered a girl child and after the birth of the child, the petitioner/ husband did not come to see the child. Thereafter, 21.01.2012 compromise talks were held in the presence of well wishers following which, the petitioner/husband had taken the first respondent wife to his Junior Paternal Uncle's house and thereafter, left her. Therefore, the respondent/ wife lodged a complaint against the petitioner/husband before the Thiruthuraipoondi All Women Police Station and the case was registered in Crime No.4/2012 for offence under Sections 498-A, 294(b), 506(i), 406 IPC. The petitioner husband was working as a Technical Assistant in Bangalore Defence Research Development Organisation and was earning Rs.50,000/- and he was also owning a Tea Estate through which, he was getting a further income of Rs.50,000/- per month. Thereby, the respondent/wife had filed a petition seeking for maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month for herself and Rs.5,000/- for the daughter. 3. The petitioner/husband had filed a counter stating that the marriage between them took place on 05.04.2010 and that the Reception was held at his house on 13.04.2010. Thereby, the respondent/wife had filed a petition seeking for maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month for herself and Rs.5,000/- for the daughter. 3. The petitioner/husband had filed a counter stating that the marriage between them took place on 05.04.2010 and that the Reception was held at his house on 13.04.2010. The further averment in the counter is that he hails from a poor family and that his family members were workers in a Tea Estate and since, the petitioner / husband was supporting his family members, it was objected by the respondent/wife and there was incompatible between them. While so, without any reason, the respondent/ wife had left from the matrimonial home. Thereafter, compromise talks were held in the presence of well wishers of both the families following which, the respondent / wife had apologized and agreed to stay with the petitioner/husband. The further averment in the counter is that the respondent/ wife does not qualify with the requirements of the essential ingredients as envisaged under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 4. On the side of the respondent/wife, she examined herself as witness and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P4. 5. On the side of the petitioner/ husband, he examined himself as RW.1 and his Junior Paternal Uncle Kalaimani was examined as RW.2 and marked 13 documents. 6. The learned Magistrate after hearing both parties and taking into consideration the documents on record, had passed an impugned order dated 28.02.2014 in M.C.No.8/2012 08/2012 which is now under challenge. 7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner/husband would submit that it is the case of the petitioner/husband that the respondent/ wife does not qualify with the requirements of the essential ingredients as envisaged under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and nowhere in the petition, an averment has been made by the wife that she is unable to maintain herself. Further, she has also suppressed the fact that she was employed with the Postal Department. He would further submit that the petitioner/husband was subjected to cross examination and during the cross examination, a suggestion was put to him by the Counsel for the respondent/wife that the respondent/wife was financially well placed and it was accepted by the petitioner/husband. Further, another suggestion was also put by the Counsel for the respondent/wife that the petition was filed by the wife only with an intention to join with the petitioner/husband. Further, another suggestion was also put by the Counsel for the respondent/wife that the petition was filed by the wife only with an intention to join with the petitioner/husband. Further, neither in the pleadings nor in the oral evidence, the respondent/wife had stated that she was unable to maintain herself. Despite, the specific plea raised in the counter that nothing had been avered by the wife stating that she is unable to maintain herself, the learned Magistrate had not observed anything in the order with regard to wife being unable to maintain herself. Thereafter, the wife had filed a complaint for offence under Section 498A which culminated into C.C.No.389 of 2014 and the case was taken for trial by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vandalur and the petitioner/husband was acquitted on 06.02.2019. Thereafter the respondent/ wife had filed a petition in HMOP No.108 of 2018 seeking for restitution of conjugal rights before the Sub Court, Mannargudi and the petitioner/husband had filed a petition for divorce before the Family Court, Coimbatore in HMOP No.478 of 2012 and later the divorce petition filed by the petitioner/husband was transferred to Sub Court, Mannagargudi and renumbered as HMOP No.6 of 2013 and both the petitions were disposed on 20.02.2019 and the petition filed by the respondent/wife for restitution of Conjugal Rights was dismissed and that the divorce petition filed by the petitioner/husband was allowed. However, no appeal has been preferred against the orders. During the pendency of the HMOP No.6 of 2013, the respondent/wife also preferred a petition under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act in I.A.No.44 of 2014 seeking maintenance of Rs.20,000/- for her and Rs.15,000/- per month for her daughter in which, the Court finding that the respondent/wife was gainfully employed as Post Master in GDS Branch, Ariyalur BO, a/w Idaiyur SO-614 702 and that she was getting salary of Rs.6,588/- per month and the same was suppressed by her, had dismissed her petition. However, the Sub Court had enhanced the maintenance in respect of the daughter from Rs.3,000/- to Rs.5000/- per month. 8. The learned Counsel for the petitioner/husband would submit that pursuant to the order in M.C.No.8 of 2012, the petitioner/husband has been paying the maintenance without any arrears till date. However, the Sub Court had enhanced the maintenance in respect of the daughter from Rs.3,000/- to Rs.5000/- per month. 8. The learned Counsel for the petitioner/husband would submit that pursuant to the order in M.C.No.8 of 2012, the petitioner/husband has been paying the maintenance without any arrears till date. Further, in I.A.No.44 of 2014, the learned Sub Judge had also observed that no evidence has been let in by the respondent/ wife to prove that the petitioner / husband was owning any Tea Estate and was getting an additional income of Rs.50,000/- per month. The learned Counsel would submit that since no finding has been made by the learned Judicial Magistrate with regard to the wife being unable to maintain herself, the order passed in M.C.No.8 of 2012 has to be set aside. 9. The learned Counsel for the respondent/wife would submit that he had attempted to contact his client and he is unable to contact her and that he his arguing the matter based on available materials on record. 9.1. The learned Counsel for the respondent/wife would submit that the petition for maintenance was filed on 27.07.2012 and on that date, the respondent/wife was not employed and even on the date of filing of counter statement by the petitioner/husband i.e. on 07.11.2012, the respondent / wife was not employed. He would submit that the respondent / wife got employment only on 01.03.2013 and it was only a temporary appointment and there was no suppression by the respondent/wife. Though nothing had been pleaded in the petition with regard to the wife being unable to maintain herself on the date of filing of petition, the respondent/wife was not having any independent income on her own and the petitioner / husband has a duty to maintain the respondent/wife and his minor daughter and that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate. 10. At this juncture, the learned Counsel for the petitioner/ husband would submit that though the learned Magistrate has awarded a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month to the respondent/wife and Rs.3,000/- per month to the minor daughter, the wife had subsequently filed an Interim Application before the Sub Court seeking interim maintenance under the Hindu Marriage Act and that the Court has rendered a finding that the respondent/wife was gainfully employed has dismissed the petition insofar as the respondent wife is concerned. However, the Court had enhanced the maintenance to the daughter from Rs.3000/- to Rs.5000/-. He would further submit that the petitioner/husband without prejudice to his contention, agrees to pay maintenance amount of Rs.6,000/- per month to be given to the child in total and he also undertakes to maintain the daughter till she gets married. He would further submit that the petitioner/husband has paid the maintenance upto date and there is no arrears in the maintenance. 11. Heard the learned Counsels on either side and perused the materials on record. 12. In this case, the maintenance petition had been filed by the respondent/wife on 27.07.2012. From the perusal of materials on records, it is seen that the respondent / wife had not stated anything in the petition and in the oral evidence that she is unable to maintain herself and that there is no evidence to show that the respondent/wife is unable to maintain herself. Whereas, during the cross examination a suggestion had been put forth on behalf of the respondent/wife to the petitioner/husband that the wife was financially well placed and it was accepted by the husband. Further, another suggestion was also put forth by the Counsel for the respondent/wife that the petition was filed only with an intention to rejoin with the petitioner/husband. Further, subsequent to the filing of the maintenance petition, the respondent/wife has got employment in the Postal Department as a Post Master. Thereafter, during the pendency of the divorce petition filed by the petitioner/husband, the respondent/wife has filed a petition under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking interim maintenance and that the Sub Court has given a finding that the respondent / wife was gainfully employed and that she has suppressed about her employment. Against the order passed by the Sub Court in I.A. No.44 of 2014 in HMOP No.6 of 2013, the respondent/wife had not filed any appeal. Now the husband has come out with a proposal that he has no objection in the amount of maintenance ordered in favour of the respondent/wife being paid to the daughter, however he has reservations in respect of the maintenance being paid to the respondent / wife alone. Now the husband has come out with a proposal that he has no objection in the amount of maintenance ordered in favour of the respondent/wife being paid to the daughter, however he has reservations in respect of the maintenance being paid to the respondent / wife alone. The petitioner/husband only seeks to set aside the order of maintenance awarded to respondent/wife alone and he has no objection in the maintenance amount in favour of the daughter being enhanced and in paying a sum of Rs.6,000/- to the daughter/second respondent till her marriage which should be inclusive of the amount as ordered in I.A.No.44 of 2014 in HMOP No.6 of 2013 on the file of the Sub Court, Mannargudi. 13. In view of the above, the maintenance of Rs.3,000/- awarded to the respondent/wife by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruthuraipoondi vide M.C.No.8 of 2012 dated 28.02.2014 is set aside. The maintenance in respect of the second respondent/minor daughter is enhanced from Rs.3,000/- to Rs.6,000/- ( which would be inclusive of the amount already awarded by the Sub Court, Mannagargudi in I.A.No.44 of 2014 in HMOP No.6 of 2013) till the daughter/second respondent gets married. 14. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision is partly allowed.